On 2008-03-26 04:44, John Levine (or somebody) wrote:
...
> So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined
> to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees
> mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else
> already subject to 3683, just block it and send out a one sentence
> notice reporting it. Then return to useful work.
>
> Regards,
> Glenn Curtiss
Unfortunately this could be seriously unfair if the someone is
in fact not You Know Who but someone with very similar opinions
and lingusitic quirks. Declaring the mail to be off-topic or an
attempt to re-open an existing consensus would be fine.
On 2008-03-26 05:33, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> What problem is anonymous posting causing, that would not also be caused by
> (for example) Spencer posting a draft saying
>
> "By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
> applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
> have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
> aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79"
>
> ... if I won't disclose them?
IANAL, but I believe that the difference is that if you falsely make
such a representation, it should be enough to strike down your patent
in court. I'd guess that even if you make it using a pseudonym,
and that can be proved, the same is true. But I think we'd need our
lawyer to take this point any further.
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
